I first met Sidney Blumenthal in the early Seventies when we worked together on an alternative weekly newspaper in Boston. In the 35 years or so since then, Sidney has carved out a dual career as one of America’s most astute political commentators and a political adviser. As a journalist, he has written for The New Republic, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker, and, more recently served as a columnist for Salon.com and The Guardian. He is also the author of six previous books on politics and the executive producer of Taxi to the Dark Side, the Oscar-winning documentary about the Bush administration torture policies and practices. And, of course, he has served as senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and to Hillary Clinton during her recent presidential campaign.

If Sidney is controversial—and he often is—it is largely because of his prescience. His 1986 book The Rise of the Counter-Establishment,the first serious critique of neo-conservatism, chronicled the birth of the neocon infrastructure that ultimately paved the way for the disastrous policies of the Bush-Cheney administration. (The Rise of the Counter-Establishment has been reissued this summer as well, by Union Square Press, with a new introduction about Cheney’s roots in neoconservativism.) In The Clinton Wars, he gives an insider’s account of the all-out assault of movement conservatives on the Clinton Administration (at a time when the notion of “a vast right-wing conspiracy” was still ridiculed by liberals.) And in the movie, Taxi to the Dark Side, thanks to Sidney and director Alex Gibney, we finally confront in the most compelling way imaginable, the horrifying reality of the Bush administration’s torture policies, the impact of those policies on its innocent victims, and the chain of command within the Bush administration that implemented to those policies.

Sidney’s newest book, < The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party, is his second collection of pieces about the Bush administration (the first was How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime). The two books serve as book ends to Bush-Cheney era and provide an extraordinary analysis(often laced with a mordant wit) of one of the most appalling eras in American history. Perhaps because of his service in the Clinton administration, Sidney understands the different cultures of the various federal bureaucracies as few journalists do. As a result, his columns are much more than mere litanies of the various transgressions of the Bush administration. Rather, we see the Karl Rove’s Permanent Majority and Dick Cheney’s Unitary Executive as part of an historic revival of American Exceptionalism, a revival that provides rationales for unilateral and preemptive military action against Iraq, the circumvention and subversion of the national intelligence apparatus, the implementation of torture policies and the suspension of habeas corpus, the politicization of the judiciary, and the elimination of so many of the checks and balances that are essential to our democracy.

As the subtitle of his new book suggests (Chronicles of a Collapsing Party), Sidney also shows the internal contradictions of these forces as they emerge, containing within them the seeds of their own destruction.

With the Democratic National Convention just over, and the Republican National Convention about to begin, it would be hard to think of a more propitious time to ask Sidney a few questions about the current state of American politics and what the immediate future holds. I’m particularly interested in the idea that the collapse of the Republican Party has a corollary—namely, the demise of the GOP presents an historic opportunity for the Democrats to firmly take the reins of power. After all, the vast majority of Americans are displeased with direction of the country, and a new generation is coming of age having suffered through eight years of Bush. To start off the conversation, I’d like to ask Sidney to what extent is does this election provide an historic opportunity for the Democrats, and, in the context of the recent Democratic Convention, do you think they will they take advantage of it?

For information about The Fall of the House of Bush and to buy the book, go to : www.craigunger.com

Potentially, this election presents the best opportunity for the Democrats in two generations. We are at the end of the long Republican ascendancy in national politics. Even when the GOP did not control the Congress, with the exception of the Carter and Clinton interregnums, it dominated the White House and by extension national politics. Under George W. Bush, the conservative Republican project reached its apex in its most radicalized form. The tragedy of 9/11 gave Bush, who was put in the White House by a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, to act as though he had achieved a realigning landslide. Rove sought to create a permanent one-party state. And Cheney sought to install an imperial presidency. These two goals, one transforming our politics, the other our government itself, have been complementary. But Bush has been discredited. With that comes the opening for the Democrats.

Thanks for writing this wonderful collection, Mr Blumenthal, and for joining us at FDL today. Your discussions late in the book about how Bush’s courtiers found ways to influence his “thinking” were particularly frightening for someone who has always viewed this Presidency as a Cheney Regency. When people tell W that “this is going to be a really difficult decision” does he ever realize, do you think, that there’s only one check mark on the page, for him to assent?

Your sources are quite well-placed to provide this kind of illumination. In conversations with them, do any ever seem inclined to write a tell-all about this horrible period in American history?

Now, as Hurricane Gustav bears down on the Gulf, perhaps aiming at New Orleans, we are reminded at how Bush has hollowed out the federal government and what happened only three years ago in Hurricane Katrina. That storm blew away the facade of conservative pretension, revealing cronyism, incompetence and indifference. The administration is mustering all its resources now for Hurricane Gustav. I would hope that now, today, this week, the Democrats would be using the new storm to talk about what the Bush administration has wrought. Failing to seize upon such opportunities allows the Republicans to regain breath and revive.

It is odd, however, that some of the key issues that have discredited the Republicans such as Iraq, the U.S. Attorney Scandal, the Jack Abramoff scandal and many more seem to be relatively minor blips on the radar screen. And if we look at the news today, those issues are not a major part of the race. Yesterday, of course, we had the astounding news about Sarah Palin. From the photos I’ve seen of her recently she looks nothing like Cheney. Do you think the Republicans can succeed in redefining themselves? Is that what they are trying to do?

Welcome, Syndey. I’m a fan of your work and also of Max’s. He’s a pistol! I have a hard time believing that the R’s spent so much time building up the power of the executive, only to hand it over to someone else – a black Democrat! What chance do you give the likelihood of an October Surprise and do you think there’s any chance that, if there is one, it will delay/supplant an election?

Personal history: I worked first at the Boston Phoenix, even before it was known as the Phoenix and called Boston After Dark. Then I worked for the other alternative newspaper in town, called The Real Paper. It was a fluid community. And Craig and I met then. Neither of us had the wit to hang out at the bar across the street, where my classmate from Brandeis and The Real Paper rock critic, Jon Landau, did, and where he met someone named Bruce Springsteen, and became his manager.

demise of the GOP presents an historic opportunity for the Democrats to firmly take the reins of power

Yes, but to what end? These are the same Democrats who helped pass the Military Commissions Act, took impeachment off the table, funded the Iraq war through two years of their majority, echoed the Administration’s belligerence toward Iran, failed to address speculation in the oil markets or adequately address the housing crisis, and most recently passed the FISA Amendments Act. So what really have we gained if the GOP disappears but Democrats vote and act like Republicans?

That this presidency has been, and will soon be completely, revealed as ultra vires, seems to change nothing. Do you hold Congressional Democrats accountable for not pursuing this Administration’s illegalities? We gave them subpoena power in 2006, but their slow use of it probably will allow the Bushies to run out the clock and has certainly precluded impeachment.

Given your understanding of Bush’s outlaw regime, was Nancy Pelosi right to take impeachment off the table?

On Sarah Palin: However impulsive McCain’s choice–and his impulsiveness ought to be a salient issue–she represents a redefinition of conservative Republicanism. She is undeniably attractive personally and clearly a political talent. She is of a younger generation and a woman. She embodies the cultural lifestyle and imperatives in a new way. McCain’s selection shows the need for the Republicans to reinvent themselves: the need for him to unify his party, deal with alienated conservatives and project a new image. This moment is not at all like that of the heyday of Reagan or the first Bush. Whatever the comparisons of Palin and Quayle–and her introduction yesterday was a boffo performance in sharp contrast to his disastrous debut–the Republicans were then on much more solid political ground than they are today. McCain is straining with Palin because of the Republican difficulties. Nonetheless, Democrats really need to learn how to respond adroitly and quickly.

Some congressional Democrats have done brilliantly, like Henry Waxman in his conduct of his House committe investigating wrongdoing. That should be the standard for committee work. The committees have not been used to their maximum effectiveness.

On impeachment: I have always thought this was a distraction and miscue. As everyone can see, it will not happen. It was never going to happen. And if it did it would paradoxically overshadow the administration’s shortcomings by becoming the only show in town and making the Democrats seem like vengeful partisans, like the Republicans who staged the Clinton impeachment. In any case, it’s a non-starter.

I do believe we need something like a national commission to investigate the administration’s torture policy and to make recommendations regarding restoration of the rule of law. This might fall to the next Congress to create or the next president.

You write about at length about how the Bush-Cheney administration accumulated so much power in the executive branch. Historically, conservatives have promoted small government so it is striking how Cheney especially promoted the “unitary executive.”

How enduring are the institutional changes wrought by Cheney et al for the national security apparatus, the judiciary, etc. And if Obama wins, what should he do about it?

On McCain and the GOP base: Conventions are real tests of party unity, as we’ve just seen with the Democrats. McCain still has to pass the test through his own convention. Palin, among other things, enables him to bring along the social conservatives, or it ought to do so. Once McCain receives the nomination he is freer to move to the center. He is already campaigning more as a “maverick” and behind the scenes he is in some conflict with both Bush and Rove on policy and politics. If we had a sensate political press corps they might report on these abrasions.

With all due respect Sidney, how do we assure the cockroaches of the Bush/Cheney admin aren’t crawling back into power in twenty or thirty years like the ones from the Nixon era and the Reagan Iran/Contra crimes have done?

It seems that a “truth and reconciliation” “let’s let bygones be bygones” is just not going to be sufficient to do this.

How about a South Africa style truth commission for the little fish confess and you are cleared don’t confess and if we find out later you get prosecuted.
With all the little fish confessing on C-span the big fish will be in tears.
Or what do you suggest we do about war crimes and torture?

Mr. Blumenthal, I absolutely loved your take on Bush’s abuse of history.

“In his unstoppable commentary about himself, Bush has become as certain of his exalted place in history as he is of his policy’s rightness. He projects his image into the future, willing his enshrinement as a great president. History has become a magical incantation for him, a kind of prayerful refuge where he is safe from having to think in the present. For Bush, history is supernatural, a deus ex machina, nothing less than a kind of divine intervention enabling him to enter presidential Valhalla. Through his fantasy about history as afterlife — the stairway to paradise — he rationalizes his current course.”
[…]
“He has entered a phase of decadent perversity, where he accelerates his errors to vindicate his folly. As the sands of time run down, he has decided that no matter what he does, history will finally judge him as heroic.”

The shortcomings of the congressional Democrats in this period, since 2007, reflect several problems: the enduring power of the executive; the narrow margin in the Senate (one vote, Joe Lieberman, turncoat); and the fractious character of the Democratic coalition, especially under a Republican president, even a drastically unpopular one. Still, as I noted, the committees have not been used fully the way Waxman shows they could be. The Democrats have not been as skillful as they could have been. the disappointments largely come from divided government–and from the fact that within the party some members from more conservative states will flake off on issues pressed by a Republican president.

On impeachment: I have always thought this was a distraction and miscue. As everyone can see, it will not happen. It was never going to happen. And if it did it would paradoxically overshadow the administration’s shortcomings by becoming the only show in town and making the Democrats seem like vengeful partisans, like the Republicans who staged the Clinton impeachment. In any case, it’s a non-starter.

I love the circular reasoning involved here. Democrats are too weak and cowardly to impeach the worst President in our history. (Face it if Bush is not to be impeached what is the point of having impeachment at all?) Therefore impeachment will not happen. Since it will not happen, the Democrats should be let off the hook for not doing it.

BTW do you really see no difference between a blowjob and the willful destruction of our Constitution? And “vengeful partisans”? When is the defense of the Constitution a matter of vengeance and partisanship? And is the idea that a potential media portrayal trumps the oath that Democratic officeholders took to uphold and defend the Constitution? Is this what we have come to? If it is, again I ask why should we care whether those who trash our rights are called Republicans or Democrats?

Final note on impeachment: It’s Labor Day weekend. It’s two months to the election. The Congress is out campaigning. Bush will be gone soon. There will not be an impeachment.

But serious issues remain, particularly on war crimes, which is why some sort of national commission might be a good instrument to document what’s happened with credibility, make suggestions, etc. The Bush Justice Department under Mukasey, from his confirmation hearings on, has been devoted to stifling the war crimes question. That is the really explosive issue. And it will not be dealt with now, but left to the next Congress and president. More likely than not, even if Democratic across the board, they may well choose to finesse and avoid the issue. Hence, I suggest a national commission.

The Democrats have not been as skillful as they could have been. the disappointments largely come from divided government–and from the fact that within the party some members from more conservative states will flake off on issues pressed by a Republican president.

With regard to the question of whether Democrats are going to be truly different from Republicans, I would cite a quote I have used before from a Bill Moyers’ interview with Andrew Bacevich”

BILL MOYERS: Do you expect either John McCain or Barack Obama to rein in the “imperial presidency?”

ANDREW BACEVICH: No. I mean, people run for the presidency in order to become imperial presidents. The people who are advising these candidates, the people who aspire to be the next national security advisor, the next secretary of defense, these are people who yearn to exercise those kind of great powers.

I read McCain’s choice of Palin as a desperate move to get the blessing of the TheoCons in the GOP. They have become increasingly frustrated over the last 8 years, as much of their agenda and issues languished in the Bush Administration, and McCain’s nomination (over other more reliable social conservatives) really depressed them.

To me, McCain’s decision to choose Palin is a slap at the NeoCons as a spent force in this election cycle (due to Iraq, Katrina, etc.) and a plea for the TheoCons to ride to his campaign’s rescue.

Your description of Wolfowitz’s error in his Libby sentencing letter struck me as new, although others may have untangled that particular skein also. Do you think the Libby sentencing letters will continue to provide fodder as GOPs and neocons attempt to remake themselves in the future?

Palin choice for TheoCons, youth and women … disenfranchised Hillary voters. I know some blue collar Hispanic workers (male) who are digging heels in and refusing to go for Obama … think Palin is interesting and fun choice, and McCain (anyone) better than BO. Wonder how widespread that is?

Which will do nothing. On the other hand it sure would be embarrassing to America having an entire former administration on the run from the World Court and deathly afraid to go to Europe.
Will we stand against the world and refuse to turn Bush over?

Lobbyists as such are not at the root of the problem of Democratic frustration–not on Iraq, for example. On the subprime mortgage crisis, Democrats have been fractured int their responses. Indeed, the two leading Democratic candidates had different programs, and the ongoing long primary campaign contributed to the lack of a unified Democratic response. In the end, a Democratic president is required. The congressional Democrats only rarely will not be a fractious bunch.

Final note on impeachment: It’s Labor Day weekend. It’s two months to the election. The Congress is out campaigning. Bush will be gone soon. There will not be an impeachment.

I would assume this is the same Congress that first met in January 2007. So since they have done nothing on the impeachment front for the last 20 months, we should excuse their inaction and move on. Why?

Dominating politics just a short time ago, his [Bush’s] elusiveness can only work to the advantage of the Republicans. If the Democratic campaign allows him to escape from being in the picture it will have forgotten a cardinal law of politics that voters can be led into the future only by making the election a referendum on the past.

The economy is collapsing too Obama might not be elected in time to save it.
What happens to politics when the rich want one thing everyone else wants something else and we don’t have the cash to do either?

I am assuming sweeping pardons on the way out the door.
If this assumption is valid, what teeth will a national commission or the next Congress have to address War Crimes, Obstruction of Justice or willful politicization of Justice?

Palin may have greater appeal than Democrats appreciate. But they should understand. If Democrats invest Obama’s personality with political magic then another personality may well also play. The politics of personality stresses, well, personalities.

On the subprime mortgage crisis, Democrats have been fractured int their responses. Indeed, the two leading Democratic candidates had different programs, and the ongoing long primary campaign contributed to the lack of a unified Democratic response.

Obama has been influenced by University of Chicago economics so I don’t know how effective he will be in intervening in markets even when the markets are at the heart of the problem.

Which press would raise the idea of a war crimes commission? Do you actually think the coprorate mainstream media in the U.S. has the independence to suggest such a commission or where you referring to the world press?

On the political factor of the economy: It’s very possible that while the economy is in long-term trouble that in the short-run, in these two months going to election day, the economy is stabilizing and actually getting slightly better, with oil prices even decreasing. The economy remains the number one issue, but not quite as pressing as it was in June and early July. It was then that the economic issue should have been intensively and relentlessly focused on. Now it’s just a bit harder for the Democrats.

Another question.
In your opinion, is this actually going to be a close Presidential election?
If so, what is the main problem with the Democrats?
In 2000, Gore tried to run as a new candidate rather than the incumbant successor to 8 years of relative peace and prosperity. In 2004 Kerry and Edwards stood under large banners stating “We Can Do Better” I agreed.
That campaign ceded strength to an Administration whose wheels were already coming off.
Now that the wheels are off, and the administration is skidding to a close, why would anyone with half a brain vote for its policies and practices?
And yet the is a “close race”.

This race is about issues Obama was just the biggest vote getter willing to end the war. This race is about lying us to war about torture and war crimes.
Its about an economy where the DOW is lower than it was when Bush took office when you factor in how much the Dollar has dropped.
Its about a “Surge ” working so well the price of gas dropped below $4 a gallon recently.
Its about FISA and a lot of people here feeling betrayed who have stopped giving to Obama.
I admit the speeches are nice though:)

Why is it that Republicans can vote as a bloc but Democrats can not? The answer I think is there no downside for Democrats to bail and vote against their own party. This is the flaw in the notion that Democratic Congressional majorities mean anything. Republicans vote as a bloc and peel off Blue Dogs and conservative Senators as needed and continue to have a working majority.

You have said the Dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. (oy vey) How can they heal the fractiousness. Obama as leader would be vital. How else can they get it together. New blood? Can you speak more to their issues?

BILL MOYERS: Do you expect either John McCain or Barack Obama to rein in the “imperial presidency?”

ANDREW BACEVICH: No. I mean, people run for the presidency in order to become imperial presidents. The people who are advising these candidates, the people who aspire to be the next national security advisor, the next secretary of defense, these are people who yearn to exercise those kind of great powers.

That is, given the consolidation of power in the executive branch, what should Obama do to roll back the changes brought in by Bush-Cheney? I think the US Atty scandal, and the Don Siegelman prosecution show that the firewall between the executive and the judiciary has been eviscerated. Likewise with national security. Can Obama restore them? Do you think he will?

On Palin: My information is that Karl Rove wanted Romney and pushed him. McCain pushed back. He really wanted Lieberman. That was completely out of the question. Palin is the result. One element of the Palin nomination is McCain establishing himself apart from the Bush/Rove political operation, even as his campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, is one of their creatures. From the outside, it’s often hard to figure out how vicious and divided the Republicans can be with each other.

One Hurricane caused $5 a gallon gas and the economy is once again the problem.
One Long Term Capital Management hedgefund goes under and well we don’t have the cash to avert a financial crisis.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will need more cash soon I don’t think we have it even with creative accounting.
Will Bush protect his Elite base to the end and kill McCain’s chances of winning? Will the Blue Dogs follow? Will Obama help us?
Can they help us or even help themselves?

There’s no telling how close the election might be. It might not be close in the end. But with peripheral Southern states not available to Democrats now(Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, possibly Tennessee)and with Florida probably gone, and Missouri too, that means that Obama must hold everything Kerry won and win several more states. Can he win Virginia? He’ll devote a lot of resources to it. But that remains a question mark and I wouldn’t be surprised if it stayed Republican. Colorado and Nevada are up in the air. Losing Ohio would be a blow–and it’s always hard for Democrats to win it. And losing Michigan would be fatal. If Obama were to lose Wisconsin or Minnesota that would also be near fatal or fatal in a very close contest. In short, this will be a very, very, very intense two months. And the idea of some New Political Map is almost certainly something over the rainbow.

Kind of ironic. The far right suspects McCain’s true Maverick will emerge in his presidency. The centrists suspect Obama’s true radical will emerge.

The swing voters thanks to Electoral System have serious power, and they like McCain’s libertarian “image” but hopefully will get with his current sell-out behavior and need to decide about Obama’s willful cautiousness in keeping things rational and bipartisan friendly.

in these two months going to election day, the economy is stabilizing and actually getting slightly better, with oil prices even decreasing. The economy remains the number one issue, but not quite as pressing as it was in June and early July.

In 2006, gasoline prices decreased in the months before the election and, in fact, bottomed out precisely on election day. We are seeing much the same in this cycle. Even with Gustav bearing down on the Gulf coast, futures prices have been trading in their most recent price range and Friday’s NYMEX close was IIRC $115.46. With the dominant position of excess speculation in the oil markets, price manipulation is the rule not the exception. So I have to think that what happened in 2006 is happening again. I would also parenthetically point out that oil is still trading at over twice its rational price.

As it is, speculators have dialed back the price in the run up to the election and surprise, it is having the desired effect. This is something that bothers me about most analysis, political, economic or othewise. Oil prices go down, this takes the heat off the political issue, but the question never seems to get asked or investigated about why this happened or if there is a link between the two.

There’s a great deal a president can do to rein in or abolish large parts of Bush’s imperial presidency. But this needs to be a systematic effort of the new president, not cosmetic. No, I don’t believe they’re all the same and that Obama or McCain would have to accept what Bush has left. Presidents are capable of changing things over time. Presidents matter. I even think McCain would alter the most egregious things Bush has done and behave more like a traditional president on torture, signing statements, unitary executive. We don’t fully appreciate how radical Bush has been. If Eisenhower could see what Bush has done he would be appalled. It wasn’t really accidental that his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower spoke at the Democratic convention jsut before Obama.

Sidney, on the subject of the committees, do you have any insight into why Sen. Jay Rockefeller has been so absolutely passive at times when his action might have made real changes in the way the government was operating under Bush/Cheney?

Hello, Jane! Welcome! Glad you’re here. I can’t respond to hypothetical situations. But I do think that Lieberman is a bridge too far under any circumstances for a Republican for vice president. It’s just too hard to put someone who is not of the party on the national ticket. Has a Republican since Lincoln put the pro-Union Democrat Andrew Johnson on the ticket in 1864 done that? It would have to take another civil war. But if McCain won I would think it highly likely that Lieberman would emerge as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. McCain has big plans in his administration for Lieberman. When he speaks on the opening night of the GOP convention he will attain a greater rank of turncoat than, say, Zell Miller. Quite a distinction.

Bush has been a radical but now he’s established new paths to power and I think it would be very hard to refuse to use those new powers. Particularly hard given that the new president wont want to have his hands tied in fixing our nation’s problems.

…”McCain would be an absolute disaster,” says a second recently retired senior US intelligence operations officer. “He is prejudiced against the CIA. The day after the 2004 election when Bush won, McCain came on TV and gave an interview in which he said something to the effect of, ‘The CIA tried to sabotage this election. They’ve made their bed and now they have to lay in it.’ I used to like McCain, but he is inconsistent.” Columnist Robert Novak quoted McCain in November 2004 as saying, “With CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.”

McCain is influenced by a circle of hardline Republican legislators and congressional staff as well as disgruntled former Agency officials “who all had these long-standing grudges against people in the Agency,” the former senior intelligence officer said. “They think the CIA is a hotbed of liberals. Right-wing, nutty paranoia stuff. They all love the military and hate the CIA. Because the CIA tells them stuff they don’t want to hear.”

That is, given the consolidation of power in the executive branch, what should Obama do to roll back the changes brought in by Bush-Cheney? I think the US Atty scandal, and the Don Siegelman prosecution show that the firewall between the executive and the judiciary has been eviscerated. Likewise with national security. Can Obama restore them? Do you think he will?

Obama isn’t progressive so I think the answer is no. He will not be as bad as Bush or McCain. There will be qualified rollbacks but Obama has shown no interest in thoroughgoing changes. The overt politicization may be removed but so will very likely any meaningful pursuit of Bush Administration lawbreakers. And then too he will have a lot of Clinton era holdovers who have bought into or acquiesced in a lot of the power grabs made in the name of the GWOT or who backed more corporate friendly economic policies. Given the magnitude of the problems and Obama’s cautiousness, I would have to say at this point that his policies are unlikely to be that effective.

Unfortunately, Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were passive pre-2006, especially around the events of the Valerie Plame case and permitted the Republicans to smear Joe Wilson for his bravery. Intelligence needs major reforms. But that will have to await a new president. Reform on that score is not going to come from the Congress.

Sidney, electing a slew of Democrats won’t remove the vast echo chamber of lies that surrounds us. Besides the political conflict, don’t we have a deeper conflict between the Enlightenment and the last gasps of medieval anti-intellectualism playing out here? Fox couldn’t stay on the air without a waiting audience hungry for crap.

Recitations of fact won’t dissuade people who are determined, for their own opportunistic reasons, to promote conspiracy theories about Blumenthal and to impute some kind of “guilt” to anyone associated with him. I know because I’ve been through all this before on a much larger scale.

It is easy to pretend that Obama’s political problems are somehow Blumenthal’s fault or the fault of a dozen people who received his e-mails. The only problem is it’s not true — and the accusations won’t help Obama.

I’m interested in pursuing this a bit, at least insofar as it relates to Rove:

My information is that Karl Rove wanted Romney and pushed him. McCain pushed back. He really wanted Lieberman. That was completely out of the question. Palin is the result. One element of the Palin nomination is McCain establishing himself apart from the Bush/Rove political operation, even as his campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, is one of their creatures.

Rove was so important in bringing the Republican Party to where it is today. But he’s largely escaped punishment and with Bush-Cheney exiting center stage, Rove is arguably the most powerful figure of the administration who is affiliated with McCain. Do you think he’ll play much of a role in the future, or has he largely played out his hand?

No idea where you picked up those complete falsehoods. I’ve heard many falsehoods over the years about myself but that’s a new one and an especially bizarre one. Small bit of info for what it’s worth: When I was a teenager, I marched twice with Martin Luther King, Jr. I suggest you read my book, “The Clinton Wars,” which deals with the racial politics of the Clinton-Gore period.

Rove is wearing many hats today, from Fox News to behind the scenes McCain campaign adviser. The press should attempt to report on his influence within the McCain campaign and his relations with various players there and how McCain responds to Rove’s advice.

I even think McCain would alter the most egregious things Bush has done and behave more like a traditional president on torture, signing statements, unitary executive. We don’t fully appreciate how radical Bush has been.

Oh I think around here we have a pretty good idea of just how radical Bush has been. That is why we can not understand this running away from impeachment. If I remember correctly about 26% of Americans favored impeachment of Nixon at the beginning of hearings into his activities. 4 months or so later he was gone. The last poll I saw several months ago had something like 45% favoring impeachment of Bush. Yes, I know that Republicans would probably not convict him but as far as I know it only takes simple majorities in the House to vote on subpoenas or on a bill of impeachment. So an investigation, a real one, could be done.

As for McCain, his statements about bombing Iran and staying in Iraq are extreme. I would add that he was against applying the Army Field Manual guidelines to the CIA so I don’t think he is that strong an opponent of torture per se. As far as the unitary executive goes, I think Bacevich is correct especially with McCain.

I always thought Lieberman would make GOP delegates revolt. But, if Palin’s scandals don’t allow her to stay on the ticket, who is McCain accountable to in replacing him, exactly? If she survives the convention but can’t stay afloat afterwards, couldn’t McCain do whatever he wanted? I recall McGovern had to get Shriver approved by the DNC Executive Committee, but at that point in a faltering campaign, wouldn’t the RNC be happy to preserve their “stars” from being Veep on a sure-loser ticket?

Seems to me that The Original Maverick can go back to his really Mavericky ways and pick Joe.

If there is a commission with subpoena power, someone who has been pardoned for his/her crimes cannot take the Fifth Amendment. His/her testimony can lead to those who were not pardoned, and can still be used to prevent that individual from ever working for government again. Better still, the deeply buried secrets would be surfaced.

The Republican echo chamber and noise machine remains unchecked. Cable news is a playground for self-indulgent, self-promoting characters with a tenuous grasp of journalism. On occasion, Fox even seems more rational, if tilted, than the other cable outlets as they careen into displays of neurosis.

Rove, the man without conscience. Anything goes. Dirty trickster taught by Donald Segretti. Wedge, wedge, wedge. So why is he treated with such respect? Moral blindness of media …. and that patriarchal not partnership paradigm — power is all. Gamesmanship not morality. Not statesmanship. Horseracing. Not about ethics. Media kool-aid pro-corrupters. Give the mike to Moyers not Rove. No wonder populism is circling the bowl.

I think he would have to be very careful in tossing Palin. She a bit like an albatross at the moment. She might bring good luck but if he gets rid of her it’s likely it will be perceived a sign of weakness. It would also be another act of desperation.

Just to finish that thought: Much of the media isn’t really what used to be called simply the press. Whatever the shortcomings of the old-fashioned press it was in the news business. That’s not what this media is about. It’s in the entertainment business primarily. It’s a branch of the Entertainment State.

The debates will begin in less than a month. I think they will be very important, much more so than in 2004. Kerry won on points, but it wasn’t decisive and probably couldn’t be. I see the debates as the old wolf versus the young wolf. Only one can be Alpha.

Rove is treated with kid gloves by the media in part because he plays the access-whore game so well–ie he feeds reporters at Time, Newsweek, etc. which helps make them into stars, and in their own way, they return the favor….

Just to finish that thought: Much of the media isn’t really what used to be called simply the press. Whatever the shortcomings of the old-fashioned press it was in the news business. That’s not what this media is about. It’s in the entertainment business primarily. It’s a branch of the Entertainment State.

The media is both infotainment and propaganda organ. The deadtree press may be less of the first than cable and network news but it is as much or more the second. One has only to open the NYT or WaPo to see reporters who speak in White House talking points and uncritically repeating whatever spin the Bush Administration feeds them.

McCain’s impulsiveness in selecting Palin suggests a deeper problem in his decision making process. There’s a pattern. I’d frame it this way: How did McCain get himself into a corner, through a flawed selection process, that he impulsively picked someone about whom he knew very little and who had not been properly vetted? In other words, the question is about McCain’s judgment and temperament.

Craig and Sydney can you please remark on the current debacle that is rapidly unfolding in the Twin Cities on the eve of the RNC convention… In particular your take on the ‘Conspiracy to commit riot’ charges being leveled… Here’s Jane’s newest revelations…

Glenn Greenwald: So what were they charged with?

Bruce Nestor: They were charged with conspiracy to commit riot, which is about as bullshit a charge — about as thin a charge — as you could possibly come up with. And I say that as a lawyer.

Glenn Greenwald: How do you distinguish between that and a protest?

Bruce: You can’t. It basically criminalizes political advocacy. I mean, the essence of conspiracy law is if a single individual takes an overt act towards accomplishing an illegal goal such as purchasing a brick, and the police then claim that someone else in his group has an intent to throw that brick, then everyone who advocates that you attend that demonstration…

Because of too many distractions or too little monitoring of the grassroots? Too many fronts? Too partnership paradigm and not patriarchal? I thought partnership paradigm IS the answer?

I’m sorry I didn’t get around to answering you before. But as Nancy Pelosi made very clear she leads, we advocate. Partnership can’t really work when the politicians dismiss us, listen to us, and refuse to work with us. OTOH there is no hierarchical structure either or if there is (and the Congressional Democrats are doing what they want) it is bent on institutionalizing and immunizing Bush wrongdoing.

As for the Real Paper and Phoenix, they were rivals and there was sort of war of the weeklies(a Joan Micklin Silver movie came out of it called Between the Lines). Both Sidney and I started on what was originally called Boston After Dark. After a rival semi-underground paper(sea level, we called them) called The Phoenix sprung up as a competitor, Boston After Dark bought it, and took its name. But the staff of the old Phoenix refused to just go out quietly and continued to publish under the name The Real Paper.

Sidney and I both started out at Boston AFter Dark and moved to the Phoenix….

She had the opportunity to purchase the property and refused it… ultimately cost the City of Wasilla (so far) $2,100,000 when they lost every legal decision to (the ultimate buyer). The case is now headed to the Alaska Supreme Court may [sic] the City of Wasilla could lose another $5,000,000 or more if the Lundgren prevails regarding a change of the date of taking. All of this litigation arose as a result of Palin appointing a Republican croney as the City of Wasilla Attorney whose only judgement was BAD JUDGEMENT. Lundgren even offered to GIFT them the land neceessary to build th sports complex and the City of Wasilla turned that offer down choosing to continue the litigation.

(Thanks, Hugh … I felt embarrassed I was talking too much at the end there.)

I always had the creepy feeling that re the Iraq War especially and maybe Katrina there was an inclination on the part of Dems (and this is pretty dark if it is true) to give Bush the rope to hang himself. How that has back-fired on all of us and the price tag is heartbreaking. Passive aggressive grid-lock. If that was the case at times … it was foolhardy.

But who knows? When I see the REALITY-DEFYING right wing reps on CSPan in House and Senate waving the metaphorical flag with their resonant psuedo patriotic rhetoric, I shake my head and wonder how I could stand listening to such unabashed progandic grand-standing for even a day.

And she was caught up in the “confidentiality” trap. Sy Hersch discovered her and Reid’s collusion in giving Bush all that money to begin to stir things up in Iran. And she knew about waterboarding and never objected? Was that a safety measure for BushCo, compromise the Dem leadership?

Okay… if not impeachment, SB is right about commissioning investigations into so much of the corruption and unAmerican activities of our government, re torture, black sites, privacy invasion, no habaes corpus, corporate cronyism.

I wonder if the red staters turning purple have so much “buyer’s guilt” … though they get Bush as a destroyer … they are psychologically enmeshed with his regime by leaving him there two terms and don’t want to weather accountability exploration. Or is it just low-info narcissism and/or cynicism that replaces proactivity with a VACUUM?